Limits...
Do interventions to promote walking in groups increase physical activity? A meta-analysis.

Kassavou A, Turner A, French DP - Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act (2013)

Bottom Line: The effect of the interventions (19 studies, 4 572 participants) on physical activity was of medium size (d = 0.52), statistically significant (95%CI 0.32 to 0.71, p < 0.0001), and with large fail-safe of N = 753.No significant differences were found between studies delivered by professionals and those delivered by lay people.Despite low homogeneity of results, and limitations (e.g. small number of studies using objective measures of physical activity, publication bias), which might have influence the findings, the large fail-safe N suggests these findings are robust.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK. k.kassavou@qmul.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Objective: Walking groups are increasingly being set up but little is known about their efficacy in promoting physical activity. The present study aims to assess the efficacy of interventions to promote walking in groups to promoting physical activity within adults, and to explore potential moderators of this efficacy.

Method: Systematic literature review searches were conducted using multiple databases. A random effect model was used for the meta-analysis, with sensitivity analysis.

Results: The effect of the interventions (19 studies, 4 572 participants) on physical activity was of medium size (d = 0.52), statistically significant (95%CI 0.32 to 0.71, p < 0.0001), and with large fail-safe of N = 753. Moderator analyses showed that lower quality studies had larger effect sizes than higher quality studies, studies reporting outcomes over six months had larger effect sizes than studies reporting outcomes up to six months, studies that targeted both genders had higher effect sizes than studies that targeted only women, studies that targeted older adults had larger effect sizes than studies that targeted younger adults. No significant differences were found between studies delivered by professionals and those delivered by lay people.

Conclusion: Interventions to promote walking in groups are efficacious at increasing physical activity. Despite low homogeneity of results, and limitations (e.g. small number of studies using objective measures of physical activity, publication bias), which might have influence the findings, the large fail-safe N suggests these findings are robust. Possible explanations for heterogeneity between studies are discussed, and the need for more investigation of this is highlighted.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Forest plot showing changes in moderate physical activity for each study ordered by quality, as well as overall effect size (Cohen’s d) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3585890&req=5

Figure 2: Forest plot showing changes in moderate physical activity for each study ordered by quality, as well as overall effect size (Cohen’s d) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).

Mentions: A meta-analysis of the included studies indicated that interventions to promote walking in groups are efficacious at increasing physical activity (overall d = 0.52, 95%CI 0.32 to 0.71, N = 4752, k = 19, p < 0.0001). A forest plot showing physical activity effect sizes with 95% CI for each study ordered by quality assessment, is given in Figure 2. Fail-safe N was large: it would require that there would have to be an additional 753 studies showing a zero effect not included in the present study for the relationship between interventions and physical activity to become statistically non significant [34].


Do interventions to promote walking in groups increase physical activity? A meta-analysis.

Kassavou A, Turner A, French DP - Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act (2013)

Forest plot showing changes in moderate physical activity for each study ordered by quality, as well as overall effect size (Cohen’s d) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3585890&req=5

Figure 2: Forest plot showing changes in moderate physical activity for each study ordered by quality, as well as overall effect size (Cohen’s d) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI).
Mentions: A meta-analysis of the included studies indicated that interventions to promote walking in groups are efficacious at increasing physical activity (overall d = 0.52, 95%CI 0.32 to 0.71, N = 4752, k = 19, p < 0.0001). A forest plot showing physical activity effect sizes with 95% CI for each study ordered by quality assessment, is given in Figure 2. Fail-safe N was large: it would require that there would have to be an additional 753 studies showing a zero effect not included in the present study for the relationship between interventions and physical activity to become statistically non significant [34].

Bottom Line: The effect of the interventions (19 studies, 4 572 participants) on physical activity was of medium size (d = 0.52), statistically significant (95%CI 0.32 to 0.71, p < 0.0001), and with large fail-safe of N = 753.No significant differences were found between studies delivered by professionals and those delivered by lay people.Despite low homogeneity of results, and limitations (e.g. small number of studies using objective measures of physical activity, publication bias), which might have influence the findings, the large fail-safe N suggests these findings are robust.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK. k.kassavou@qmul.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Objective: Walking groups are increasingly being set up but little is known about their efficacy in promoting physical activity. The present study aims to assess the efficacy of interventions to promote walking in groups to promoting physical activity within adults, and to explore potential moderators of this efficacy.

Method: Systematic literature review searches were conducted using multiple databases. A random effect model was used for the meta-analysis, with sensitivity analysis.

Results: The effect of the interventions (19 studies, 4 572 participants) on physical activity was of medium size (d = 0.52), statistically significant (95%CI 0.32 to 0.71, p < 0.0001), and with large fail-safe of N = 753. Moderator analyses showed that lower quality studies had larger effect sizes than higher quality studies, studies reporting outcomes over six months had larger effect sizes than studies reporting outcomes up to six months, studies that targeted both genders had higher effect sizes than studies that targeted only women, studies that targeted older adults had larger effect sizes than studies that targeted younger adults. No significant differences were found between studies delivered by professionals and those delivered by lay people.

Conclusion: Interventions to promote walking in groups are efficacious at increasing physical activity. Despite low homogeneity of results, and limitations (e.g. small number of studies using objective measures of physical activity, publication bias), which might have influence the findings, the large fail-safe N suggests these findings are robust. Possible explanations for heterogeneity between studies are discussed, and the need for more investigation of this is highlighted.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus